#7 - What's so nice about it is you, and I assume he, don't confuse things by using the generic "Observer effect" wording, but go right to how an instrument effects a change. It's that simple next step that clarifies. Otherwise a student is left with "instruments" "analysis" and "observing" - and coming up with "how in the world would something I do every day mess up just seeing?"
On a more macroscopic level, sometimes I just pause in the kitchen and watch a dust particle drift into the beam of LED light (counter pendants) and take off downward in a blaze of speed.
#8 | Posted by YAV at 2018-06-17 12:51 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1
The dust movement there is most likely caused by air currents set up by the lights. The light pressure from lights like that is unlikely to be observable on something as large as a dust particle. More likely, the heat from the lights has set up a convection cell near the lights, or something else has set up some kind of air current there - AC/heat, change in the shape of the ceiling or walls, or something.
There is enough of it in space to matter, though. One of the proposed methods of space travel is with a "light sail". It had to be accounted for in calculating trajectories for long distance space probes as well. See this article for some information: Radiation Pressure (Wikipedia)
I am unable to read the article itself - Forbes doesn't seem to like me - but the statement that, for example, supersymmetry doesn't have any evidence for it isn't really correct. There is support for it, as it explains some things the standard model has difficulty with. At the same time, the discovery of the Higgs Boson has placed some strain on supersymmetry because it is fairly heavy for the model. Overall, I would class supersymmetry as still only a hypothesis, but I'm not really in the particle physics world. There are other hypothesis out there, but they aren't as able to explain as many of the disconnects with the standard model.
#1 - about QM telling us "weird" is the answer: I think you are misunderstanding what is meant by "beauty". QM is "beautiful" in its mathematics as well. The weirdness of QM is a directly predicted by the simple mathematics. Almost all of QM falls out of group theory with a few basic assumptions. That relationship wasn't necessarily what started the theory, but that is how it is expressed today. I remember finding it much easier to follow QM once I was taught "bra-ket" notation, as it made the connection with group theory and algebras much easier to grasp. Then again, I had courses in, and really enjoyed, abstract algebra and other abstract mathematics.